LOCAL PLANNING PANEL

(1)

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL – THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING HELD AT THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ON 15 MAY 2019

PRESENT:

Richard Pearson Chair Penny Holloway Expert

Marcia Doheny Expert

Alison Turner Community Representative

COUNCIL STAFF:

Cameron McKenzie Group Manager – Development & Compliance

David Reynolds Group Manager – Shire Strategy, Transformation & Solutions Paul Osborne Manager – Development Assessment

Kristine McKenzie Principal Executive Planner

Cynthia Dugan Development Assessment Co-ordinator Nicholas Carlton Acting Manager – Forward Planning Megan Munari Principal Co-ordinator – Forward Planning

TIME OF COMMENCEMENT:

1:03pm

TIME OF COMPLETION:

2:30pm

DECLARATION OF INTEREST:

The Chair Richard Pearson declared an interest in Items 2, 3 and 5.

The Chair advised that, owing to his conflict of interest in Items 3 and 5 as per his Declaration of Interest form, the Chairing of the meeting in relation to these two items would be conducted by Marcia Doheny. Mr Pearson left the meeting prior to the consideration of these matters. The Chair also declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in Item 2 having worked for the consultant more than 10 years ago.

Alison Turner Community Representative declared a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in Item 5 due to knowing the family of one of the directors named in the report.

(2)

ITEM 1: DA 496/2018/HA – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES & CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI DWELLING HOUSING & RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING DEVELOPMENT – 6 MCCAUSLAND PLACE, KELLYVILLE SPEAKERS:

Ron Sim (Simplan) – Town Planner acting on behalf of the applicant

COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:

The development application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL DECISION:

The Panel agreed with the Council officer’s recommendation and approved the application subject to recommended conditions except with the deletion of the first five words in Condition 62 to now read as follows:

62. Privacy Screens

Tinted/obscured balustrades are to be provided along the northern and southern sides of all upper floor balconies within multi-unit housing Blocks A, B and C. The screens are to be provided prior to the occupation or use of the structure.

REASONS:

For the reasons outlined in the Council officer’s report. The Panel amended Condition 62 as it considered the solution proposed by the applicant to be appropriate.

VOTING:

Unanimous

NB: A submission on behalf of the applicant regarding conditions of consent was received prior to the meeting and considered by the Panel.

ITEM 2: DA 1343/2019/HA – INSTALLATION OF A GOODS LIFT FOR CASTLE TOWERS SHOPPING CENTRE – LOT 600 DP 1025421, NO. 6-14 CASTLE STREET, CASTLE HILL

SPEAKERS:

Nil

COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:

The development application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Panel agreed with the Council officer’s recommendation and approved the application subject to conditions as set out in the report.

REASONS:

For the reasons outlined the Council officer’s report.

VOTING:

Unanimous.

(3)

ITEM 3: PLANNING PROPOSAL – 33 BROOKHOLLOW AVENUE, NORWEST (NORWEST STATION SITE) (6/2019/PLP)

SPEAKERS:

Nil

That the Planning Proposal proceed to Gateway Determination.

The Panel agreed with the Council officer’s report that the Planning Proposal proceed to Gateway determinations as follows:

1. A Planning Proposal (6/2019/PLP) applying to part of 33 Brookhollow Avenue, Norwest (Lot 101 DP 1181138) be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination to amend The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 as follows:

a) Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map from 1:1 to part 4.1:1 and part 6.5:1;

b) Amend the Height of Buildings Map from RL 116 metres (approx. 8 storeys) to part RL 135.65 metres (11 storeys) and part RL 184.25 metres (25 storeys);

c) Amend the Lot Size Map from 8,000m² to 3,500m²; and

d) Amend Schedule 1 and the associated Additional Permitted Uses Map to permit

‘neighbourhood supermarkets’ (up to 1,000m²) as an additional permitted use on the site.

2. Council proceed with the preparation of a site specific Development Control Plan to guide future development outcomes on the site. The DCP should include the draft parking rates detailed in Table 4 of this report, with further consideration given to the proposed rates following the outcomes of the detailed traffic modelling for Norwest Precinct. Should the traffic and transport modelling identify the need for a lower rate of parking provision, this should be adopted because of the location of the development adjacent to the station and noting that the provision of parking can itself generate traffic.

3. Should the proposal proceed to Gateway Determination, Council and the Proponent enter into discussions with respect to securing a fair and reasonable contribution towards local infrastructure improvements required to support the proposed development uplift.

REASONS:

For the reasons outlined in the Council officer’s report. The Panel added the final sentence to point 2 to reflect its view that a lower rate of car parking could be applied if justified by the traffic and transport modelling.

VOTING:

Unanimous.

(4)

ITEM 4: PLANNNING PROPOSAL – 2-4 BURBANK PLACE, NORWEST (18/2018/PLP)

SPEAKERS:

Simon Wilkes, Associate Director, Urbis (Proponent)

That the Planning Proposal not proceed to Gateway Determination.

The Panel agreed with the Council officer’s report that the Planning Proposal not proceed to Gateway determinations as follows:

1. The planning proposal for land at 2-4 Burbank Place, Norwest not proceed to Gateway Determination, on the basis that:

a) The proposal is inconsistent with the desired future built form outcomes envisaged in the Norwest Precinct, as reflected in the North West Rail Link Corridor Strategy and The Hills Corridor Strategy. The height and scale proposed is excessive at this location on the periphery of the Precinct and fails to contribute to an appropriate transition in building heights, away from the centre of the Precinct;

b) The proposal would facilitate an inappropriate interface with adjoining low density residential development and public domain areas. It would result in unacceptable visual impacts that are unsympathetic to the current and future character of surrounding land, including low density areas beyond the boundary of the Norwest Precinct; and

c) The proposal may set an undesirable precedent for height and scale on the remainder of the site (if subject to future redevelopment) and similar sites on the periphery of the Norwest Business Park. Such outcomes would have unreasonable cumulative impacts and enable densities that may exceed the capacity of local and regional infrastructure.

d) The inclusion of 9 storeys of above ground car parking contributes significantly to the excessive scale of the proposal. Any future proposal should seek to minimise the amount of above ground car parking

2. Further consideration should be given to the potential to facilitate increased employment density on the land within an alternative and lower-scale built form to that proposed (potentially ranging from 8-12 storeys, subject to further investigations, including traffic and transport modelling).

3. The Panel supports the priority progression of traffic and transport modelling for Norwest to enable Council to strategically set height, density and car parking controls across the precinct which enable the significant investment in the North West Rail Line to be realised.

REASONS

For the reasons outlined in the Council officer’s report. The Panel included the additional point 1(d) above to reflect its concern that aboveground car parking to the extent proposed is inappropriate. The Panel made a number of minor amendments to the recommended reasons for refusal.

VOTING:

Unanimous.

(5)

ITEM 5: PLANNING PROPOSAL – 24-26 MILE END ROAD, ROUSE HILL (5/2019/PLP)

SPEAKERS:

Andrew Wilson – Proponent for T.J. Mile Pty Ltd Melissa Mitchell, Resident in support of the rezoning COUNCIL OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Proposal not proceed to Gateway Determination.

The Panel agreed with the recommendation in the Council officer’s report that the Planning Proposal not proceed to Gateway determination for the following reasons:

1. The planning proposal does not demonstrate adequate strategic merit and is inconsistent with the Greater Sydney Region Plan, Central City District Plan, Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions and Council’s Local Strategic Planning Framework, as they relate to the management and retention of industrial lands.

2. The proposal fails to recognise the greater need to protect employment lands that will increasingly be required to provide jobs and urban services for the growing population within the North West Growth Centre and broader Hills Shire area. Given the substantial supply of land within the Shire already zoned to accommodate residential development, the encroachment of residential development into an identified industrial and urban services precinct does not represent prudent management of the scarce supply of land available for industrial development.

3. The proposal to permit residential development within the Mile End Road Industrial Precinct would potentially exacerbate land use conflicts between current and future industrial development outcomes and impede further investment and development activity for industrial and urban services within the locality.

4. The proposal to permit residential development within the buffer area surrounding the Rouse Hill Water Recycling Plant would potentially result in amenity impacts on future residential development. The proposed residential outcome adjoining the site identified for future expansion of the Plant may compromise the ability of Sydney Water to undertake the future expansion of the facility required to service planned growth in the North West Growth Centre and Sydney Metro Northwest Corridor; and

5. The subdivision concept submitted in support of the planning proposal does not adequately resolve a number of site specific issues including impacts on Critically Endangered Ecological Communities and Vulnerable Species under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, bushfire risk, flooding hazard and appropriate road design.

REASONS

As outlined in the Council officer’s report.

VOTING Unanimous

Please note: Further information was provided by the applicant and circulated to Panel Members prior to the meeting via email.

A petition containing 115 names in support of the rezoning was tabled by Melissa Mitchell at the meeting.